Working Group 4 brings together around 30 academics from 20 countries to study ethical standards, transparency, and accountability frameworks, as well as misconduct and scandals within the executive triangle of ministers (and heads of government), senior civil servants, and senior political advisers. Our work is structured in two distinct but complementary parts, each with its own conceptual focus and methodological design.

​

Part I – Formal Rules: Mapping the Ethical Standards, Transparency & Accountability Architecture

​

Part I examines the formal regulatory frameworks governing the executive triangle. We map:

• Ethical standards, including integrity rules & conflict of interest provisions

• Transparency frameworks

• Accountability architecture

​​

Methodologically, Part I is based on a structured expert-coded dataset, developed through a detailed common codebook and harmonised questionnaires. Country experts systematically code the existence, scope, and strength of formal rules across jurisdictions.

​

What is unique?

​

This dataset offers the first systematic, cross-nationally comparable map of the ‘rules-in-books’ governing the entire executive triangle, rather than focusing on one actor or one public standards dimension. It allows us to compare regulatory architectures across countries and to assess degrees of convergence, divergence.

​

Part II – Misconduct and Scandals: Accountability in Practice

​

Part II shifts from formal design to real-world breakdowns and contestation. It builds a cross-national, longitudinal dataset of:

• Misconduct allegations

• ​Scandals

• Consequences of misconduct and scandals

​

Here, scandals are treated not as anecdotal events but as observable stress-tests of transparency and accountability systems.

​

Methodologically, Part II relies on systematic media-based event data collection. Using a harmonised keyword string and a common coding protocol, country teams conduct structured searches in national media databases and code scandals according to type, actors involved, timeline, institutional response, and outcomes.

​

What is unique?

​

This is one of the first comparative datasets to treat executive-triangle scandals as structured, coded events across countries and over time, enabling analysis of patterns, triggers, institutional responses, and consequences. Unlike perception-based corruption indices, this dataset captures concrete episodes of contestation and ‘irregular accountability’ activation.

​

By combining formal institutional mapping with systematic scandal data, WG4 can assess not only how ethical standards, transparency and accountability rules are designed, but how and how well this architecture functions in practice.